Hollis and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Hollis against a decision of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) regarding the funding of his supports. The dispute centred on whether certain proposed supports, including counselling, occupational therapy, and support worker assistance, met the criteria of being "reasonable and necessary" under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Act 2013 (Cth). The case was heard by Deputy J W Constance P.

The court was required to determine whether the NDIA had correctly applied sections 33 and 34 of the NDIS Act 2013 in assessing Mr Hollis's statement of participant supports. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the proposed supports represented value for money and whether they were likely to be effective and beneficial for Mr Hollis, having regard to current good practice. The assessment of Mr Hollis's mental health, including diagnoses of depression, anxiety, alcohol use disorder, and PTSD, and the recommendations for therapeutic interventions and ongoing support, were central to this determination.

The court reasoned that the NDIA must be satisfied of several conditions under section 34(1) of the Act for each support to be funded. These include that the support will assist the participant to pursue their goals, facilitate social and economic participation, represent value for money, be effective and beneficial, take account of informal supports, and be most appropriately funded by the NDIS. The court noted that all these conditions must be satisfied. In this instance, the court found that the decision of the NDIA was flawed and therefore set aside the decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration.